+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 154
  1. #91
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,185
    Thanks
    3,665
    Thanked
    4,705
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    That's all very well and good but is it really a good use of government spending to subsidise your child care so you can do up your kids playroom?

    Government spending has to be targeted at increasing workplace participation and for supporting people who can't work or need a short term lift. For everything else you need to own your choices.
    I didn't put my children into day care one day a week so I could do up their playroom, I put them into day care 1 day a week so I could have a break for a few hours from a very needy toddler. I had just spent the previous year doing nothing but feeding and carrying a baby with me for pretty much the entire day and night. Whilst DH was very supportive unfortunately he couldn't lactate. My stress levels were so high that I ended up seeing a psychologist - not very practical when you've got a toddler in tow so that was another errand I could do on my child-free day. I happen to find house maintenance very therapeutic so that's how I chose to spend any free time I had on my child-free days. Who are you to judge what I do in that time?

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Busy-Bee For This Useful Post:

    HappyBovinexx  (02-05-2015),Mokeybear  (02-05-2015),Nicsta83  (02-05-2015),Pusheen The Cat  (02-05-2015),sunnyflower  (03-05-2015),ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)

  3. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    It's not about judging. It's about directing scarce government funds into areas that benefit the most. Government needs to increase work force participation, it benefits the tax base, more workforce participants means more spending in the community which equals more jobs. This is what the government aims for.

    Directing financial incentives to SAHP really makes very little government sense, people are out of the workforce, potentially becoming unemployable, not contributing to their retirement savings, so of course the government wants people back in the workforce.

    That is what this policy is about. It is not a personal judgement on why people use CC. It is about best possible government spending.

    And as long as Preschool continues to be universally available, children who are at risk can access child care, those that are studying or job seeking can access child care and those whose medical professional recommends it can access child care (all with subsidies), I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

    I am supportive of people using child care for whatever reason, but, unless it is needed to attend work, study, job seeking (or other at risk areas) then you should pay for it. I really don't see the issue.

  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:

    2015  (02-05-2015),atomicmama  (02-05-2015),BlissedOut  (02-05-2015),DailyDiversion  (02-05-2015),JR03  (02-05-2015),Marshy68  (02-05-2015),Meitis  (02-05-2015),neza  (02-05-2015),Star Light  (03-05-2015),tessa27  (02-05-2015)

  5. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,342
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked
    395
    Reviews
    6
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    I cannot get my daughter into the very popular c & k, and it costs heaps more than the kindy room in cc anyway which I can't afford to pay. She goes to kindy in cc because that works best for us. Like I said in my first post, this is an invaluable service for us, she loves it and is doing so well. She hadn't been in cc previously so we aren't "taking advantage ", I can't yet work as I have another at home still, and as it stands our cc has many, many free spaces in every day in every room.
    Take away ccb for us, and she loses her kindy in the year before she goes to school.

  6. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,850
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,897
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    It's not about judging. It's about directing scarce government funds into areas that benefit the most. Government needs to increase work force participation, it benefits the tax base, more workforce participants means more spending in the community which equals more jobs. This is what the government aims for.

    Directing financial incentives to SAHP really makes very little government sense, people are out of the workforce, potentially becoming unemployable, not contributing to their retirement savings, so of course the government wants people back in the workforce.

    That is what this policy is about. It is not a personal judgement on why people use CC. It is about best possible government spending.

    And as long as Preschool continues to be universally available, children who are at risk can access child care, those that are studying or job seeking can access child care and those whose medical professional recommends it can access child care (all with subsidies), I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

    I am supportive of people using child care for whatever reason, but, unless it is needed to attend work, study, job seeking (or other at risk areas) then you should pay for it. I really don't see the issue.
    But this goes back to my earlier post. The govt and society is saying that working mums should get rebates bc they contribute financially to the bottom line and SAHM's don't, that it's a strictly financial issue, not a judgmental one. But many women working with children small enough to attend day care/pre school/ kinder aren't paying a huge amount of tax, many aren't paying any. The $7500 CCR often costs the govt. Yes they stay in the workforce but again, a SAHM that returns to FT work pays tax just like the working mum whose children at now at school not DC.

    I just think this whole argument that SAHM's aren't worthy bc they don't pay tax and financially contribute is flawed. A woman working casual/part time, paying basically no tax and getting the CCR is getting the same financial support as I get on FTB and the one day of 30% CCB I have received in the past.

    This isn't saying working mums aren't worthy, or valuable or shouldn't get CCR. Quite the opposite. but if we are going to look at it in strictly financial terms like you say..... well I question the whole argument.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (02-05-2015),TheMadHatter  (03-05-2015),ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)

  8. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    19
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    13
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    It's not about judging. It's about directing scarce government funds into areas that benefit the most. Government needs to increase work force participation, it benefits the tax base, more workforce participants means more spending in the community which equals more jobs. This is what the government aims for.

    Directing financial incentives to SAHP really makes very little government sense, people are out of the workforce, potentially becoming unemployable, not contributing to their retirement savings, so of course the government wants people back in the workforce.

    That is what this policy is about. It is not a personal judgement on why people use CC. It is about best possible government spending.

    And as long as Preschool continues to be universally available, children who are at risk can access child care, those that are studying or job seeking can access child care and those whose medical professional recommends it can access child care (all with subsidies), I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

    I am supportive of people using child care for whatever reason, but, unless it is needed to attend work, study, job seeking (or other at risk areas) then you should pay for it. I really don't see the issue.
    very well said.

  9. #96
    harvs's Avatar
    harvs is offline Winner 2014 - Spirit of BubHub Award
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    9,997
    Thanks
    6,239
    Thanked
    15,895
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 2/4/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 19/3/15Busiest Member of the Week200 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    It's not about judging. It's about directing scarce government funds into areas that benefit the most. Government needs to increase work force participation, it benefits the tax base, more workforce participants means more spending in the community which equals more jobs. This is what the government aims for.

    Directing financial incentives to SAHP really makes very little government sense, people are out of the workforce, potentially becoming unemployable, not contributing to their retirement savings, so of course the government wants people back in the workforce.

    That is what this policy is about. It is not a personal judgement on why people use CC. It is about best possible government spending.

    And as long as Preschool continues to be universally available, children who are at risk can access child care, those that are studying or job seeking can access child care and those whose medical professional recommends it can access child care (all with subsidies), I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise.

    I am supportive of people using child care for whatever reason, but, unless it is needed to attend work, study, job seeking (or other at risk areas) then you should pay for it. I really don't see the issue.
    I should say that I fully understand the argument you are presenting, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. I just don't think it's as black and white as the way you are presenting.

    The issue is that with these changes the attitude of 'if you want it then pay for it' means that some people won't be able to pay for it and therefore won't be able to access it. There are people on this thread who have expressed this. And that to me is inequitable, given that there are many reasons why SAHP make this choice. And sometimes it's not even a matter of choice.

    I am also uneasy with the idea that humans only have value and are worthy of government support if they contribute financially to society. I'm not saying that you are specifically saying this, but it's just a general thought.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to harvs For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (02-05-2015),SoThisIsLove  (03-05-2015)

  11. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,517
    Thanks
    432
    Thanked
    3,246
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    When I was a kid, there used to be creche.

    I wonder whatever happened to that.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Jennaisme For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (02-05-2015)

  13. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    @delerium. I don't personally know about that, I guess most of my peer group are professional women and even working part time contribute significantly to the tax pool. I don't really know anyone that just works school hours a day or two a week.

    It is not saying SAHP are not worthy, but that child care is a necessity for working or studying or at risk families, it is not needed for any other reason so why do government funds need to be directed towards it for any other reason?

    I don't include Preschool in this, I think universal access to Preschool is a must.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (02-05-2015),DailyDiversion  (02-05-2015),Frankenmum  (02-05-2015),Star Light  (03-05-2015),VicPark  (02-05-2015)

  15. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by harvs View Post
    I am also uneasy with the idea that humans only have value and are worthy of government support if they contribute financially to society. I'm not saying that you are specifically saying this, but it's just a general thought.
    I'm saying the opposite, the government must direct funds to the most needy, those who cannot work for a short or long period. Directing funds so people can use CC to go grocery shopping is not a good use of government money. Yes, if children are at risk, there are medical conditions etc those people need to be looked after.

    And yes, some people might not be able to afford CC when things change, but that is life, sometimes you can't afford everything you want. I would like to increase my son's Preschool day by another day but unless I pick up another day of work I can't afford it, so I don't. If you are that keen for your kids to attend CC and you can't afford it, you either don't, or you find a way to earn more money.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:

    2015  (03-05-2015),atomicmama  (02-05-2015)

  17. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,850
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,897
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by NoteToSelf View Post
    @delerium. I don't personally know about that, I guess most of my peer group are professional women and even working part time contribute significantly to the tax pool. I don't really know anyone that just works school hours a day or two a week.

    It is not saying SAHP are not worthy, but that child care is a necessity for working or studying or at risk families, it is not needed for any other reason so why do government funds need to be directed towards it for any other reason?

    I don't include Preschool in this, I think universal access to Preschool is a must.
    to even break even to pay for the CCR they recieve tax wise, women need to be earning around 50+k a year. Most working mums I know are not earning more than that. It could be argued that in these cases the tax payer is funding these women to top up the family income. They are receiving the rebates but not paying the tax. Where is the line? If this is about $$$ do we only fund CCR for women paying over 7500 a year in tax? Otherwise you can argue they are a drain just like the sahm's getting ccb.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    AdornedWithCats  (02-05-2015),Isabellabean  (02-05-2015),snowqu33n  (02-05-2015),ThenThereWereThree  (02-05-2015)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Families with 2 working parents
    By pinksand in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 23-12-2014, 07:57
  2. Nightly routine for working parents??
    By Monkey'sMummy in forum General Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 21-10-2014, 20:40
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 09:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Softmats
With so many amazing reversible designs, the soft and cushioned Premium Bubba Mats are the perfect space for all the family. Not only do they look fantastic; you can also enjoy the quality and comfort for years to come.
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
Sudocrem / Infacol
Sudocrem® Healing Cream is a soothing emollient cream which aids and assists in the management of nappy rash, eczema, abrasions, wounds and minor skin irritations. Infacol Wind Drops are an effective method of treating wind in infants.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!